I don't think I'd go so far as to say open computers without any qualifying of the term. I think perhaps the iPad may be the beginning of a new wave of easy-to-use consumer devices, but there will always be a need for open computers.

Then again, nothing was ever meant to last for ever. Even Hitler only envisioned his "glorious Third Reich" to last for a thousand years.

...wow, that was a random thing to say. Sorry! I'm over tired. It's 3:00am in Melbourne and I've been working 12-14 hour days all week. Time for bed.

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."- Douglas Adams

If Woz ran Apple there'd be cool hardware and software but I'm not wholly convinced Apple
would be a success.

Jobs has an eye for what the consumer wants and an obsessive compulsive desire for a product that looks and behaves in an aesthetically superior way.

This isn't about open versus closed. This is about ideology and how best to bring that ideology to fruition.

Jobs is better than you when it comes to finding the right design and feature-set and he knows it. Why would he be so interested in "design by committee" approaches?

Woz should have never left day to day operations at Apple. I wished he was a senior vice president and active board member that way he could keep Jobs in check. I just know if that were the case there would be more open and even better products and services at Apple today.
With Woz's know how and Jobs understanding of the business side of computers, Apple would be even more influential today. And apple fans would be happier.

Woz should have never left day to day operations at Apple. I wished he was a senior vice president and active board member that way he could keep Jobs in check. I just know if that were the case there would be more open and even better products and services at Apple today.
With Woz's know how and Jobs understanding of the business side of computers, Apple would be even more influential today. And apple fans would be happier.

Reality doesn't support your assertion. The minute Steve Jobs left Apple's decline started. Woz was already gone. Woz was a brilliant engineer but he wasn't a shark, Jobs was and that's the reason why Job's was able to leave Apple, ultimately fail at NeXT and then find success with Pixar and resurrection/redemption back at Apple.

Today there are only two US companies ahead of Apple in market cap (Exxon and MSFT) which is a testament to the "Cult of Jobs" and the amazing talent assembled by Apple's braintrust. It's hard to believe that anyone could have brought Apple here but jobs. It wasn't going to be Sculley, it wasn't going to be Spindler or Amelio and sadly it wasn't going to be Woz either.

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.- SolipsismX

I don't really get the Woz worship. Not only did he depart Apple before the Mac even appeared, he hasn't done a single, significant thing since. It's not because he wasn't a "shark" but apparently because he lost interest. He did the equivalent of dying young and leaving a good-looking corpse. Nobody can criticize his work over the last 30 years because he hasn't done any.

No, the ipad isn't the beginning of the end for any computer.Not until it can handle full power apps. When I can take an ipad to work and cut a movie trailer in 1080 through Final Cut, then we can talk.

No, the ipad isn't the beginning of the end for any computer.Not until it can handle full power apps. When I can take an ipad to work and cut a movie trailer in 1080 through Final Cut, then we can talk.

Until then, it's all FUD in my opinion.

It is FUD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Wu

But this may not matter for many people, for the iPad is handy tool for getting well-produced content from the industries that make it. And even if it doesn't do everything a computer does, it still does most things. Still, it is meant for consumers not users, and as such has far more in common with the television than the personal computer. It is not meant for the Homebrew Computer Clubfor tinkerers, hobbyists, or for that matter, creators.

[my emphasis]

I wonder what Tim Wu's answer would be if I asked him "Did you consume that article or did you create it?"

I've got no less than 5 drawing/painting apps. I've got apps to create text. The tools are there for creation and getting better. What I don't have to worry about is tinkering with a filesystem or combining components and hoping my Frankenstein creation works. I agree to disagree that the iPad is not a creation tool. Tim Wu could have created that same piece on an iPad and it wouldn't diminish one iota the fact that it was a creation and not merely consumption.

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.- SolipsismX

I wonder what Tim Wu's answer would be if I asked him "Did you consume that article or did you create it?"

I've got no less than 5 drawing/painting apps. I've got apps to create text. The tools are there for creation and getting better. What I don't have to worry about is tinkering with a filesystem or combining components and hoping my Frankenstein creation works. I agree to disagree that the iPad is not a creation tool. Tim Wu could have created that same piece on an iPad and it wouldn't diminish one iota the fact that it was a creation and not merely consumption.

Agreed. This all sounds so familiar. For years I heard the Mac criticized in precisely the same way: "If it doesn't run ______, then it is useless."

No, if it doesn't run _____, and _____ is important to you, then it is useless to you. Others can make the same assessment for themselves, thank you very much.

I don't really get the Woz worship. Not only did he depart Apple before the Mac even appeared, he hasn't done a single, significant thing since. It's not because he wasn't a "shark" but apparently because he lost interest. He did the equivalent of dying young and leaving a good-looking corpse. Nobody can criticize his work over the last 30 years because he hasn't done any.

This seems a bit harsh. Woz was there at the start hand assembling the Apple 1 in Job's garage. Perhaps history will ultimately see this as his defining moment but so what? Isn't that contribution enough? Many famous people leave a brief moment of genius that influences generations of new minds... in all disciplines. Harper Lee--for instance--comes to mind. Try to have some respect. We can only hope history will treat us so well.

On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like 1984. 

This seems a bit harsh. Woz was there at the start hand assembling the Apple 1 in Job's garage. Perhaps history will ultimately see this as his defining moment but so what? Isn't that contribution enough? Many famous people leave a brief moment of genius that influences generations of new minds... in all disciplines. Harper Lee--for instance--comes to mind. Try to have some respect. We can only hope history will treat us so well.

I know what he did 35 years ago. I am responding to the comparisons between the life stories of Apple's founders. For some, Woz's accomplishments over 30 years ago seem to rank higher than Jobs' accomplishments, which have continued for decades. Woz seems beloved more than anything else for being a geek's geek and a nice guy. So what? If Wozniak has been relegated to a virtual footnote in technology history, he has nobody but himself to blame. He's the one who cashed in his chips, and Jobs is the one who continued to risk everything to further his legacy -- and we know how that worked out. To my mind, there's just no comparison. Steve Jobs is many orders of magnitude more accomplished.

I know what he did 35 years ago. I am responding to the comparisons between the life stories of Apple's founders.

I read it as you were just kind of slamming him... my mistake. I agree with you that there is little to compare between the two since the inception of Apple. Jobs clearly stands apart as the driven and visionary one.

On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like 1984. 

That said, I think we forget sometimes that these icons are living people. If someone wrote about me having contributed nothing significant for the past 30 years, I would go tell them to go !@#$ themselves.

On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like 1984. 

the whole closed App Store thing is friggin weird. Come on does anyone here not get a little weirded out about it? I might end up getting an Android.

Ummmm let me see.

Have I gotten any virus on my iPhone? Nope.
Do apps generally behave and work right? Yup
Is Apple making a conscious effort to keep the quality of apps high? Yup

I'm trying to understand what exactly is so beneficial about an open store. If my phone were to be compromised by malware who knows what could happen to my account.

I'm a believer that there must be balance. I believe in a more closed environment as far as deciding what applications are appropriate but I believe that the tools used to create such applications should be open as much as possible.

The fear about a closed app store is about as silly as the socialist propaganda of the last election. In most cases a hybrid system that balances benefits of open platforms versus the moderation of a closed system will rule the day.

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.- SolipsismX

Apple has proven repeatedly over the years that it is possible to provide a safe, reliable and secure operating system with a open architecture that invites a lot of development.

Some users need the safe and secure App Store ecosystem, especially if a product is targeting a younger market. However it shouldn´t come at the expense of everyone else and the choice and innovation that a open architecture provides.

The best way to sell a lot of hardware is by offering as much choice and possibilities.

Apple has proven repeatedly over the years that it is possible to provide a safe, reliable and secure operating system with a open architecture that invites a lot of development.

Some users need the safe and secure App Store ecosystem, especially if a product is targeting a younger market. However it shouldn´t come at the expense of everyone else and the choice and innovation that a open architecture provides.

The best way to sell a lot of hardware is by offering as much choice and possibilities.

Ahhhh so being open is why Apple's stock is at 260 a share. Why didn't I know that?<sarcasm>

If you want open architecture and safe go compute on Linux. Apple's success comes from the fact that they are a "Benevolent Dictator". They have a closed system (just like the Wintel combination of Microsoft and Intel) and all three companies are more successful than any open source company

But then again why are we discussing open architecture. Exactly what does that mean? Does that mean that Apple is supposed to provide the source code to Mac OS X or does it mean that Apple should be using open source and standards when appropriate to further the OS?

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.- SolipsismX

But then again why are we discussing open architecture. Exactly what does that mean? Does that mean that Apple is supposed to provide the source code to Mac OS X or does it mean that Apple should be using open source and standards when appropriate to further the OS?

That's the great thing about the word open -- it never has to be defined. All the vaguest arguments in technology are premised on never having to describe what it means.

Why are you guys trying to define ¨Open¨ as static when itś a variable?

¨Open¨, in my opinion, refers to the degree the user has to modify his/her own device and software to meet their own needs and desires.

A device or software can be more or less ¨Open¨ or even ¨Closed¨ where the user has little or no control.

The argument that security issues increase the more ¨Open¨ a device or software is is false.

In the case of the malware on jail broken iPhones, it´s the huge demand from ordinary users to regain their freedom to use their device as they wish that many jail broke their phones without knowing how to secure it afterwards.

Those who wrote the jail breaking program have learned something Apple has already known for quite some time, to enable all security by default and then let the user learn and open up their security more once they understand it´s risks and have a need for it.

Apple´s App Store and closed devices is a limited concept, like allowing only childrens pop-up books at local libraries with the false and superior assumption that people can´t handle anything stronger.

The problem now of course is ordinary people have to resort to devious sources to regain control over their closed devices and play a cat and mouse game with Apple. When Apple should just provide a means to let advanced users regain control and use apps from outside sources much like OS X is. That would likely cut out about 90% of jail breakers right there. Apple could retain control of the firmware, iPhone OS and such, like OS X, and any network abusers would have to deal with AT&T much like they would if they abuse their laptop connect cards.

Why are you guys trying to define ¨Open¨ as static when itś a variable?

¨Open¨, in my opinion, refers to the degree the user has to modify his/her own device and software to meet their own needs and desires.

A device or software can be more or less ¨Open¨ or even ¨Closed¨ where the user has little or no control.

The argument that security issues increase the more ¨Open¨ a device or software is is false.

In the case of the malware on jail broken iPhones, it´s the huge demand from ordinary users to regain their freedom to use their device as they wish that many jail broke their phones without knowing how to secure it afterwards.

Those who wrote the jail breaking program have learned something Apple has already known for quite some time, to enable all security by default and then let the user learn and open up their security more once they understand it´s risks and have a need for it.

Apple´s App Store and closed devices is a limited concept, like allowing only childrens pop-up books at local libraries with the false and superior assumption that people can´t handle anything stronger.

The problem now of course is ordinary people have to resort to devious sources to regain control over their closed devices and play a cat and mouse game with Apple. When Apple should just provide a means to let advanced users regain control and use apps from outside sources much like OS X is. That would likely cut out about 90% of jail breakers right there. Apple could retain control of the firmware, iPhone OS and such, like OS X, and any network abusers would have to deal with AT&T much like they would if they abuse their laptop connect cards.

So, the idea that "openness" increases security issues is false, yet you provide evidence to the contrary: malware on jailbroken devices. Offering the solution of "enable all security and make the user tinker with it" is not a solution that Apple deems adequate. Apple doesn't support jailbroken devices and yet people with jailbroken phones still complain when legitimate apps don't work well, which wastes Apple's time as well as the developers. Imagine if they actually legitimized jailbreaking your phone. It's like with Windows. Who bore the brunt of blame for instability on Windows: Microsoft or the developers of the drivers that caused the crashes?

I honestly wonder how many "ordinary people" out there are lamenting their lack of "freedom" on the iTouch devices.
Even libraries have rules, policies, standards, etc. They don't just offer any book somebody off the streets gives them. That might make them draconian, but it works for the majority of people. Same with the iTouch devices.

So, the idea that "openness" increases security issues is false, yet you provide evidence to the contrary: malware on jailbroken devices.

The jail breaking program opened the closed device, but the developers failed to take into account enabling security by default for those less skilled who were just trying to regain control over their device that Apple has taken away from them.

Quote:

Offering the solution of "enable all security and make the user tinker with it" is not a solution that Apple deems adequate.

It´s exactly what Apple has done for decades with their Mac operating systems.

Quote:

Apple doesn't support jailbroken devices and yet people with jailbroken phones still complain when legitimate apps don't work well, which wastes Apple's time as well as the developers. Imagine if they actually legitimized jailbreaking your phone?

What if they did?, they likely would they follow the model of what has worked flawlessly on OS X.

Instead they got greedy, all controlling and flippant with their App Store approval process.

Quote:

It's like with Windows. Who bore the brunt of blame for instability on Windows: Microsoft or the developers of the drivers that caused the crashes?

I would expect Microsoft to be more prone to closing their devices to thwart actual security issues than Apple who has little or none for decades. So obviously there is some other reason right?

Quote:

I honestly wonder how many "ordinary people" out there are lamenting their lack of "freedom" on the iTouch devices.

Quote:

Even libraries have rules, policies, standards, etc. They don't just offer any book somebody off the streets gives them. That might make them draconian, but it works for the majority of people. Same with the iTouch devices.

The iTouch has only a 9% adoption rate among all computer users (PC and Mac) compared to 36% for the iPod.